I agree with acceptance I really do.
what I dont agree with is not being aloud to choose not to accept.
I like that you said lets finish it already. Can I ask where the finish line is to you? Because the polygamist are on deck and guess who is after them. Not trying to be an ass just curious as to where you draw the line
Also your list should not include religion because any religious person who reads a KJV 1611 would be considered a bigot for expressing any of his beliefs. Religous freedom is not included in our definition of diversity unless it pertains to non Christian.
But this debate is politics and kind of off topic. Sorry for steering the ship off course.
I want an egalitarian society, a true egalitarian society.
The finish line for me is completely with the individual. If you've ever watched star trek, I'd prefer the future to be something similar to that. Not making us a bunch of cowards who roll over every time we are challenged, but a future where everyone is accepted based on their merits and not the color of their skin, gender, or sexual preferences. There will always be assholes and dickheads in the world, that is true, but the majority of society can and should adopt a more understanding view on certain things.
I know this does go into politics some but still. If a person who is gay wants to get married, they should be able to. It's not right to say since you were made to like guys you can't have the ceremony and honor of the pact of marriage. It wouldn't effect me if a gay couple gets married, and it really doesn't effect anyone outside of the 2 people getting married and potentially their children if they have adopted any, or from prior to accepting themselves for who they are. Polygamists would be about the same, except I would institute some governed laws that would change how that type of marriage is viewed by the government themselves. Of course when you get into the religious side of it, it's suppose to be between one man and one woman, and because of this it's how our government also views it. But it shouldn't be this way, because it alienates some of the population for no good reason. I'd understand if it was a subject of where their rights also infringed on yours, but really what they do is there business including marriage.
I also understand some prejudice was earned for a valid reason, perhaps being mistreated as a child, like a lot of the older african decent and native decent people were treated like 2nd or non-citizens. However at some point we must stamp out the old embers of hate and make progress. What I'm trying to get at, is that you cant lump a group of people together like that, and anything that does is wrong because it causes a degree of segregation. You can't say that all black teens are gang bangers, you can't say that all middle aged white men are drunks, you cannot call a group of people worthless or anything of that sort. The term redskin was used as a racial slur, sure it maybe antiquated but so was N*****. The last word I have issue with, because the way it's used today. The word shouldn't be used with the a at the end like it is for them to describe themselves if they do not want another group of people calling them that too. Desensitizing words is the best course of action, to truly make them have no power over us, but that is a long way off, and until then we need to work on how we as a society hold ourselves. The issue of racial, sexual, and religious prejudice will not go away in my life time, nor my childrens lifetime. But if we work on fixing it now by the time my grandkids are born and growing up it would be a thing of the past. But right now too much of our peers, elders, and children have been subject to it, and it's engrained into our beings as being bad, negative, or hateful. As long as the generations who suffered from it are still alive, the words will still hold that power, intentional or not.
Back on track here I know I deviated, but where my line is simple; If any action(s) is taken to where it's a clear violation of someones basic human rights then it is wrong. But it must meet the clear guidelines of being:
-Rights against torture.
-Rights against slavery.
-Rights to fair trial / each individual judged for any mater legal or not based on their merits.
-Freedom of speech, conscience, religion, and lifestyle.
And any action which negates any of these rights as the are intended should be done away with in society. Ones freedom of speech cannot infringe on another persons freedom of life/lifestyle, affiliations, creed, race ect.
Now, I don't mean that you cant call someone a dumbass because they chose to be lazy and not do their work, or are doing something that clearly has earned that moniker, like I said above. It's meant to prevent such slanderous terms that degrade a person/people who have done nothing to earn the insults / degradation.
I want stricter gun laws, but I do not want to completely remove the fundamental right to bear arms or protect ones family. And that's what this is about, the fundamental rights of the native americans who find the name racial and distasteful. If it were simply because a team was representing them in some fashion but they were not being compensated for it, then it'd be different and I'd be for the team.